[Media-watch] Polls Suggest Media Failure in Pre-War Coverage

[david Miller]

 from editorandpublisher.com

MARCH 26, 2003 Polls Suggest Media Failure in Pre-War Coverage

Public Believed Saddam Was Behind 9-11, Has Nukes

By Ari Berman

NEW YORK -- Opinion

Thousands of American soldiers have marched into Iraq, bombs are falling,
and oil fields are ablaze. After the shooting stops, press attention
probably will focus on our pursuit of Saddam Hussein's henchmen, our search
for hidden stocks of weapons of mass destruction, and our "securing the
peace" for a democratic Iraq. But when the war dies down, editors and media
analysts should catch their breath and ask themselves: How much did press
coverage (or lack of coverage) contribute to the public backing for a
pre-emptive invasion without the support o f the United Nations?

When it came down to crunch time, the American people -- as evidenced by
opinion polls conducted after President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam on March
17 -- supported the attack by about a 2-to-1 margin. Some of this reflected
the usual rallying 'round the flag that accompanies every war, but the truth
is, Bush always had strong (if nervous) popular support.

This support in the polls long perplexed ardent critics of U.S. policy, who
pointed out that the public rallied to the war even though, according to the
most-recent surveys, a vast majority of our citizens believed that the
attack would increase, not decrease, the terrorist threat and would hurt,
not help, our economy.

So, what motivated Americans to back their president throughout the winter
of discontent -- when much of the rest of the world strongly disagreed with
the need for war now?

Of course, there were many reasons, ranging from partisan politics to
genuine hatred and fear of the evil Saddam. But there was another key
factor: Somehow, despite the media's exhaustive coverage of the post-9/11
world and the Saddam threat, a very large segment of the American public
remained un- or misinformed about key issues related to the Iraqi crisis.
Let's look at a few recent polls.

In a Jan. 7 Knight Ridder/Princeton Research poll, 44% of respondents said
they thought "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Iraqi
citizens. Only 17% of those polled offered the correct answer: none. This
was remarkable in light of the fact that, in the weeks after 9/11, few
Americans identified Iraqis among the culprits. So the level of awareness on
this issue actually plunged as time passed. Is it possible the media failed
to give this appropriate attention?

In the same sample, 41% said that Iraq already possessed nuclear weapons,
which not even the Bush administration claimed. Despite being far off base
in crucial areas, 66% of respondents claimed to have a "good understanding"
of the arguments for and against going to war with Iraq.

Then, a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey released
Feb. 20 found that nearly two-thirds of those polled believed that U.N.
weapons inspectors had "found proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of
mass destruction." Neither Hans Blix nor Mohamed ElBaradei ever said they
found proof of this.

The same survey found that 57% of those polled believed Saddam Hussein
helped terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks, a claim the Bush team had
abandoned. A March 7-9 New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that 45% of
interviewees agreed that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," and a March 14-15 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
found this apparently mistaken notion holding firm at 51%.

The significance of this is suggested by the finding, in the same survey,
that 32% of those supporting an attack cited Saddam's alleged involvement in
supporting terrorists as the "main reason" for endorsing invasion. Another
43% said it was "one reason."

Knowing this was a crucial element of his support -- even though he could
not prove the 9/11 connection -- the president nevertheless tried to bolster
the link. Bush mentioned 9/11 eight times during his March 6 prime-time news
conference, linking it with Saddam Hussein "often in the same breath," Linda
Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor observed last week. "Bush never
pinned the blame for the [9/11] attacks directly on the Iraqi president,"
Feldmann wrote. "Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression
that persists among much of the American public."

Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, told me last week: "It's
very rare to find a perception that's been so disputed by experts yet firmly
held by the public. There's almost nothing the public doesn't believe about
Saddam Hussein."

The question, again, is: Did the press do a solid enough job in informing
the public about the key contested issues? "If the U.S. war against Iraq
goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions
about the way it sold the war," Feldmann conceded. "But if war and its
aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire." Newspapers
could be, too.

Now that the prewar march is behind us, let's hope the press does a better
job of informing Americans in a post-Saddam world. --- E&P welcomes letters
to the editor: letters at editorandpublisher.com.

Source: Editor & Publisher Online

Ari Berman is a reporter for E&P.